- -
1999 01 5619
Advanced Aerodynamic Control Effectors
ABSTRACT
A 1990 research program that focused on the
development of advanced aerodynamic control effectors
(AACE) for military aircraft has been reviewed and
summarized. Data are presented for advanced planform,
flow control, and surface contouring technologies. The
data show significant increases in lift, reductions in drag,
and increased control power, compared to typical
aerodynamic designs. The results presented also
highlighted the importance of planform selection in the
design of a control effector suite. Planform data showed
that dramatic increases in lift (> 25%) can be achieved
with multiple wings and a sawtooth forebody. Passive
porosity and micro drag generator control effector data
showed control power levels exceeding that available
from typical effectors (moving surfaces). Application of
an advanced planform to a tailless concept showed
benefits of similar magnitude as those observed in the
generic studies.
INTRODUCTION
As we move into the new millennium, the technical and
political challenges for the aerodynamic community are
significant and continued success will require that all
available information and knowledge be utilized to guide
future aircraft development activity. This is especially
true for the military community that must battle the
challenges created by the diverse and dramatically
changing threat environment. With this in mind, it is clear
that we must review the technical accomplishments of
the past before we attempt to create the future.
A review of the history of aircraft design (references 1 to
8) reveals that aerodynamic control effector technology
has changed little since the early 1900s. Aircraft have
tended to utilize "typical" suites of moving surface
control effectors such as rudders, elevators, flaps,
ailerons, etc. One exception to this trend is the use of
thrust vectoring for control (Le. AV8B and the F22).
Richard M. Wood and Steven X. S. Bauer
NASA Langley Research Center
Our present approach to aircraft design is highly
influenced by our national economic policies. These
influences have resulted in acquisition cost and
operational cost of new airborne weapon systems to be
the most critical elements in determining if a new system
is developed. This change has placed an increased
burden on aircraft designers to develop cost effective
aircraft concepts that satisfy multi-disciplinary, multi-role,
and multi-mission design challenges. Future aircraft
designs must also have dramatic improvements in
survivability to address the daily advancements in
electronic sensor technology used to detect and track
military aircraft. In addition to the need for survivability,
there is also a need for low drag and the ability to be
highly maneuverable.
This paper will review the results (references 9 to 12) of a
study conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center
from 1989 to 1992 to develop advanced aerodynamic
control effector concepts required for new millennium air
vehicles. In the late 1980s, it was recognized that to
advance the state-of-the-art in military aircraft design, the
development of the next generation of control effectors
must address signature, weight, and maintainability
issues while offering dramatic improvements in
aerodynamic efficiency. As a result, the focus of this
study was to develop control effector technologies
consistent with the development of an aircraft that would
not have gaps, cracks, steps, holes, etc. in all surfaces
visible by advanced electromagnetic detection systems.
The selected control effector technologies are required
to satisfy projected survivability, drag, and agility
requirements. The design philosophy and selected data
for advanced aerodynamic control effector concepts
consistent with this philosophy are presented in the
following sections of this paper. Particular emphasis will
be placed upon passive porosity technology, micro flow-
management devices , and advanced planforms.
 Minimize planform breaks
No sensor-visible breaks in the parent surfaces
No movement of the sensor-visible parent surfaces
2"dderivative continuous sensor-visible surfaces
These constraints suggest that the chosen design
space resides outside the realm of solutions recognized
in the late 1980s.
Desian Strateav
To meet the challenges described above; a design
strategy was developed which assumed that success
could only be achieved when approached from the most
challenging direction. A graphical depiction of this point
is presented in figure 1. The figure shows the variation in
aircraft performance and aircraft weight due to design
angle-of-attack (lift) for an existing design approach and
for the AACE design strategy, in which the dominant
design condition is the high angle-of-attack point. The
present strategy assumes that it is easier to achieve high
levels of off-design performance if you focus your design
efforts on the most challenging design point and thus
allow the most benign design point to be viewed as "off-
design ".
A major concern of the activity was to reduce the
influence of historical, but unproven, constraints and
assumptions which tend to dominate many existing
design activities. An example of an unproven historical
aerodynamic assumption would be that the minimum
drag boundary is defined by linear theory with 100%
leading edge thrust, reference 13. Another assumption
is that wing leading-edge bluntness increases wave drag
at supersonic speeds, reference 13.
The final strategy employed by the team was to explore
the use of interfering aerodynamic flow fields and
electromagnetic fields to improve the aerodynamic
performance and electromagnetic performance,
respectively, of candidate technologies. In the
aerodynamic arena, the effort focused on wake
interaction studies, fuselage upwash (reference 14),
base-drag management, and vortex management.
AACE TECHNOLOGIES
A list of the technologies included in the AACE activity
are presented in table 1. In general, these technologies
can be divided into three groups: planforms, flow control,
and surface contouring. All experimental tests of the
aerodynamic technologies were conducted on generic
models in order to isolate the particular aerodynamic and
flow control effect.
3
Noted in the table are the technologies for which
experimental data have been obtained. Note that data
are available for all technologies listed with the exception
of Stagnation Point Control, listed under surface
contouring, and Adapting/Flexible Surface, listed under
both surface contouring and flow control. Both of these
technologies were identified at the end of the program
and as a result were not fully investigated.
Selected results from the planform group, flow control
group, and surface contouring group will be presented in
the following sections of the paper.
Planform Technologies
As mentioned previously, the planform was viewed as a
primary contributor to control effector performance within
the AACE activity. In particular, the activity focused on
the development of planform concepts that would
provide significant increases in lift and linear stability
characteristics for angles-of-attack up to 70". A total of 2 1
planforms were investigated in the activity. All of the
planforms were a variation from the 6 planforms depicted
in figure 2. As shown in figure 2, the planform types
were a diamond (baseline configuration), twin-body,
sawtooth forebody, twin-wing, cut-out wing, and joined
wing. All planform models tested were constructed as
flat plates with sharp edges. Tests were conducted at a
Mach number of 0.17. The data obtained for each
planform was reduced with a reference area equal to the
total planform area to ensure that differences in lifting
surface area did not bias the results. Note that the use of
the total planform area as the reference area will result in
aerodynamic coefficients that are of lower value than
those typically observed for configurations with similar
planforms.
The twin-body and sawtooth forebody concepts were
developed to investigate vortex flow interaction between
the fuselage and wing structures as well as fuselage
upwash (reference 14) in order to increase lift and to
eliminate large nonlinear stability characteristics at
moderate to high angles-of-attack. Another benefit of
the twin-body concept is the ability to reduce drag at
supersonic speeds through positive near-field
interference (references 15 to 17). The notion behind
the twin wing, cut-out wing, and joined wing planforms is
to create aircraft designs with multiple primary lifting
surfaces such that each surface can be turned off and on
(Le., loading increased, decreased, or eliminated) as
required to create the desired flight characteristics. It was
hypothesized that independent control of each primary
lifting surface could increase lift and also allow control of
the aircraft stability level at all angles-of-attack.
The longitudinal aerodynamic data (reference 9)
obtained for all planforms showed that the twin wing and
sawtooth forebody provided the largest increase in lift
ratio wing with a GA(W)-1 airfoil (reference 21). Both wing
models were porous over their complete surface area in
order to maximize the flexibility of the models. In addition
fuselage studies were conducted on a 2.5 and 5.0
caliber, tangent-ogive models. The porosity for all
passive porosity models was nominally 22% with hole
diameters of approximately.020 inch. The focus of the
wing models was to investigate roll and pitch control
effectiveness and the forebody models were used to
investigate yaw control. Applying tape over the porous
surface to create a solid surface varied the extent of the
porous surface on all models.
Representative passive porosity control effector results
at a Mach number of 0.17 for the 65" Delta wing model
are presented in figures 7 and 8. Also shown in figure 7
are representative control effectiveness data for the F/A-
18 aircraft (references 22 and 23). Because a control
effectors ability to provide pitch control is highly
dependent on vehicle layout it was decided that the
potential of passive porosity to provide pitch control
would be evaluated by investigating the change in lift
coefficient, see figure 8.
Roll control for various extents of tip porosity is shown in
figure 7 and changes in lift coefficient for various extents
of trailing-edge porosity are shown in figure 8. The data
are for configurations with porosity applied to both the
upper and lower surface. This application of porosity
allows the passive porosity system to eliminate (dump) lift
on a particular region of a wing. The data of figures 7 and
8 clearly show that significant control authority is available
with this technology, at moderate angles-of-attack. A
comparison of the passive porosity results with those for
the conventional aerodynamic control effector show that
the passive porosity device is more effective for angles-
of-attack greater than 10".
The failure of the passive porosity device to generate
control forces at low lift is due to the symmetric loading
on the airfoil at these conditions. As mentioned
previously, passive porosity effectiveness is a function of
the pressure differential on the surface. Geometries
studied in the AACE activity were symmetric, and thus,
they would have negligible pressure gradients at zero lift.
This observation supports the need to view the planform
and surface contour as important contributors to control
effectiveness. To maximize the effectiveness of the
passive porosity control effector, large pressure
gradients must exist on the surface of the wing or
fuselage at all angles of attack. To create this
environment may require new families of planforms and
surface contours.
Figure 9 presents side force data for a porous 5.0 caliber,
tangent-ogive forebody model with various
circumferential extents of porosity, a porous forebody
with chine, and the F/A-18 H A W (reference 24) with
5
actuated strakes. Also shown on the figure is the
available side force from the F/A-18 vertical tail (reference
25). In the region where asymmetric vortex shedding
typically occurs (a > 20"), the application of 360" of
porosity eliminates the asymmetric vortex loading.
Application of porosity to the left side of the forebody
allows for maximum control of the side force. The
addition of a chine to the same model increases the side
force contribution of passive porosity. As observed with
the wing data shown in figure 7, a comparison of the
generated forebody forces shows significant increases
at angles-of-attack greater than 25" over that available
with more traditional movable control effectors, a vertical
tail or actuated forebody strakes.
Micro-Drag Generators (MDGs)
The Micro-flow-management devices that were '
investigated include micro-drag bumps, spoilers, and
splitter plates. These concepts modify the boundary
layer in order to promote or inhibit flow separation that in
turn creates large changes in the aircraft forces and
moments. These concepts would work in concert with
other flow control and surface contouring technology to
enhance the naturally occurring pressure field over the
configuration in order to maximize the desired
aerodynamic force.
The Micro Drag Generator concept (reference 11) uses
small deployable devices referred to as MDGs that
individually generate small amounts of drag, but when
deployed in large numbers can generate substantial
amounts of drag. The micro-drag generators (MDGs) may
be thought of as miniature spoilers or speed brakes.
During normal operation of the vehicle (e.g., during
cruise), the devices would not be extended into the
flowfield and would not increase the drag of the vehicle.
MDGs are designed to force the flow on a vehicle to
separate on the aft-facing side of the device and to
reattach before reaching the next device, see figures 10
and 11. Note that the MDG devices tested were sized for
wind-tunnel conditions (i.e. thicker boundary layer in the
wind tunnel than would be seen in flight for the same
wing chord) to ensure the concept was properly
evaluated. The MDG concept allows substantial amounts
of drag to be generated with a simple system of small
devices. The drag generated by a system of MDGs is
expected to be equivalent to that generated from a
single device with the same projected area as the sum of
all the MDG projected areas. Because MDGs are very
nonintrusive, the application of such devices on military
aircraft as a control effector is quite attractive (reduced
weight and complexity)
MDGs were experimentally investigated on the right
hand side of a high aspect ratio wing with the G A O - 1
airfoil, see figure 11, and also on a family of axisymmetric
bodies. The wind-tunnel data indicated that the
symmetric wing with a NACA 64a-series airfoil, and a
symmetric near-conical wing (reference 26) with a
variable-thickness, NACA 64a-series airfoil were tested
over a range of Mach number range of 1.6 to 2.0 and
angles-of-attackfrom -4" to 20".
Surface oil flow photographs are presented in figure 15
for the three wings and longitudinal aerodynamic
characteristics of the three wings are shown in figure 16.
The oil flow photographs of figure 15 are for a lift
coefficient of 0.3 and show that all three wings have
nearly identical surface flow characteristics despite
having large differences in UD, see figure 16. Note that
the dark regions at the tip of each wing is a result of
lighting and does not reflect a change in flow
characteristics. The data of figure 16 clearly show that
the natural flow wing provides the same performance as
the symmetric wings at zero lift and outperforms the
symmetric wings at lifting conditions. In general, the
natural flow design provides approximately a 10%
improvement in aerodynamic performance with a non-
symmetric and planar geometry.
ADVANCED AIRCRAFT CONCEPT
The results presented show that AACE technologies
provide increased lift, reduced drag, and increased
control authority, compared to typical aircraft concepts.
The data also indicate that these results are consistent
with afixed geometry, rigid vehicle with minimal moving
surfaces. To further refine the concepts, an
investigation of the aerodynamics of a representative
advanced vehicle configured with AACE technologies
was conducted.
The AACE advanced concept was developed by re-
winging an existing advanced tailless concept. The
baseline vehicle consisted of a chined fuselage and a
30" swept trapezoidal/diamond wing. The redesign
effort focused on replacing the single 30" diamond wing
with twin 30" diamond wings as depicted in figure 17. A
primary design consideration was the minimization of
supersonic cruise drag for a Mach number of 1.8. The
redesigned configuration was highly constrained by the
wing/fuselage attachment points for the existing high-
speed wind tunnel model. The resultant twin wing
design was constrained to have the same exposed wing
area and the same wing volume as that of the baseline
wing. These two requirements in combination with the
wing/body attachment restrictions penalized the twin
wing design activity. A photograph of the AACE
advanced twin wing concept installed in the NASA
Langley Research Center Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel is
shown in figure 18.
Selected experimental results from the supersonic test
program are presented in figures 19 and 20. Figure 19
shows the variation in zero-lift drag with Mach number for
7
the baseline and twin wing concepts. The drag data
show that the two concepts are similar with the twin wing
concept having approximately 2 to 4% greater drag than
the baseline. These results are very encouraging when
considering the fact that the baseline configuration was
area ruled for the design point and the twin wing design
activity was limited by the existing hardware.
Presented in figure 20 is a summary of the lift
characteristics over the Mach range of 1.6 to 2.2 for the
baseline and twin wing concepts. The data clearly show
that the lift curve slope for the twin wing is approximately
14% greater than the lift curve slope for the baseline
geometry. Note that these data are consistent with the
results of the planform study discussed previously.
Analysis of the results of figures 19 and 20 show that the
increased lifting efficiency of the twin-wing concept more
than compensated for the increase in zero-lift drag to
produce a vehicle with improved aerodynamic efficiency.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A 1990 research program that focused on the
development of advanced aerodynamic technologies
(AACE) for military aircraft has been reviewed. A new
class of advanced aerodynamic control effector
technologies have been presented and discussed.
These new technologies were developed to meet the
following requirements; invisible to electromagnetic
energy, aerodynamically robust, and light weight. The
technologies must be aerodynamically and mechanically
simple and they must minimize the powedenergy
requirements for operation.
Data presented for planform, flow control, and surface
contouring technologies have shown significant
increases in lift, reduced drag, and increased control
power, relative to typical aerodynamic designs. The
results presented also highlighted the importance of
planform in the design of acontrol effector suite. The
planform data showed that dramatic increases in lift (>
25%) can be achieved with multiple wings and the
sawtooth forebody. Passive porosity and micro-drag
generator control effector data showed control power
levels exceeding that available from typical effectors
(moving surfaces) at moderate to high angles-of-attack.
Application of an advanced planform to an tailless
concept showed benefits of similar magnitude as that
observed in generic planar configuration studies.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the outstanding
contributions of Brian McGrath of Johns Hopkins Applied
Physics Laboratory, Greg Gatlin and Ken Goodrich of
National Aeronautics and Space Agency, and Pat O'Neil
and Garry Billman of Boeing Airplane Company.
 PLANPORMS
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS - MUlti-body*
- Serrated Body*
advanced aerodynamic control effectors - Joined Wing*
- Multiple Wings'
- cut-out Wings*
drag coefficient
SURFACE CONTOURING FLOW CONTROL EFFECTORS
- Natural Flow Design* - Passive Porosity*
zero-lift drag coefficient - Multi-Body Design* - Separation Control Plates*
- Blunt Trailing Edge* - Inflatable Micro Bumps'
- Passive Porosity* - Adaptingfilexible Surface
lift coefficient ~ Stagnation Point Control - Boundary Layer Control*
- Adaptingfilexible Surface

lift curve slope

* data available
side force coefficient Table 1. Candidate AACE technologies.

change in lift coefficient

change in rolling moment coefficient

hole diameter, inches

plenum depth, inches

hole spacing, inches 0 Existing Design Strategy Design Point

Advanced Design Stalegy Design Point
lift to drag ratio

mach number
Aircraft
Performance
micro drag generators

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Angle-of-attack
u Angle-of-attack
external pressure, psi Figure 1. Graphic depicting AACE design strategy.
external pressure, psi

skin thickness, inches

trailing edge

hole exit velocity

angle-of-attack,degrees
Diamond Twin Body Sawtooth
(baseline)

boundary layer thickness, inches

Twin Wing cut-out Joined

Figure 2. Sketch of the six classes of planforms
investigated in the AACE activity.

9
 +No Micro-drag Generators
+Medium Density, Large Drag Bumps
Medium Densi
0.20

0.15

CD
0.10

0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 0.05

a
Figure 9. Plot of the side force coefficient for various
circumferential extent of passive porosity on a 0.00
5 caliber, tangent-ogive model -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
CL
Figure 12. Plot of drag coefficient against lift coefficient
for the GAW(1) wing with and without micro
drag generators installed
Flow Over a Hemispherical Ridge
Region Geomerxy P r e s ~ u r e Drag Expansion R c g m n

POIlflYe
N~~~~~~
slope
Negarwe slope h,gh high
low - Airfod M a i m u r n Thmtncsr
Line

Upper Surface Lower Surface

Flow Over a Vertical Plate Standard Natural Standard Natural

or Rectangular Ridge

Figure 13. Graphic depicting Natural Flow design

Figure 10. Sketch of local flow field characteristics over concept applied to a delta wing.
micro drag generators

Figure 14. Photograph of Natural Flow 65"delta wing

model.
Figure 11. Photograph of GAW(1) airfoil model with large
micro drag bumps installed.

11
AACE PROGRAM
The Advanced Aerodynamic Control Effector (AACE)
program was an ad hoc activity created by a group of
researchers at the NASA Langley Research Center. The
team was formed in 1989 with a focus of developing
"NEW" aerodynamic technologies in a multidisciplinary
environment that supported the development of
advanced military vehicles for the projected threat
environment in 2010.
The goal of the AACE team was to create new
aerodynamic technologies that allow for a dramatic
improvement in both aerodynamic performance and
survivability performance with respect to the levels
available with existing technologies. An implied goal
within the program was to create a significantly lighter and
cost effective vehicle, compared to existing aircraft.
In pursuit of this goal, advanced three-dimensional
shaping, advanced planforms, micro devices, passive
pneumatics, and inflatables were identified as target
technologies. From 1989 to 1992, the activity executed
more than 30 experimental test programs involving more
than 60 models in 5 test facilities at the NASA Langley
Research Center, references 9 and 12. The AACE
activity consisted of approximately 5 work years of effort
each year with a budget of approximately $200,000.00
per year.
The following sections of this report will review the
research conducted from 1989 to 1992.
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
A typical design approach is to execute a hierarchical
scheme in which identification, development, and
implementation of control effectors is performed
sequentially on a pre-designed vehicle with fixed
planform. In contrast to a typical approach, the AACE
activity employed a scheme in which all aerodynamic
control effector technologies would be identified,
developed, and implemented in parallel. This approach
would allow each technology development activity to
follow the path of the most significant technical
challenge.
Another aspect to AACE was that the planform was
recognized as being a primary contributor to control
effector performance and the surface contouring was
recognized as being secondary contributor to control
effector performance. The recognition of these two
points were critical to the success of the activity because
it recognized that planform and surface contour are
responsible for much more than creating lift and
establishing stability levels at low lift conditions. The
approach used in AACE required the planform and
surface contouring to establish the aerodynamic
2
performance, controllability potential, and survivability
potential of the vehicle over a broad range of angle-of-
attack and mach number. These characteristics were
especially important when considering new classes of
control effectors. It was thought that traditional planforms
and surface contours might not provide the three-
dimensional loadings required to optimize the
performance of the advanced aerodynamic control
effectors.
The notion of moving large or even small sensor-visible
elements of the aircraft parent surface (i.e., external and
internal surfaces) to create control power is counter to
the design constraints imposed by reduced cost,
improved survivability, and low drag. In a first order
analysis, the purchase and operational costs of an aircraft
are proportional to the number of parts of an aircraft.
Survivability is proportional to the number and types of
physical breaks and curvature breaks in the sensor-
visible parent surfaces and drag is proportional to the
number of breaks in the flow-contact surfaces. To
address these issues, the AACE activity focused on
eliminating breaks in the parent surface and/or
eliminating moving control effectors in order to reduce
the number of parts and reduce actuation requirements;
thus, decrease cost and drag and increase survivability.
Desian Space
In conceptualizing the design philosophy, a design
space was defined that would allow significant intellectual
freedom while ensuring resulting technologies were
relevant. As noted earlier, specific design goals were
not identified in the AACE program, however, a set of
objectives/constraints were identified up front, and
these objectives/constraints were used to focus the
team's efforts. The AACE objectives are listed below:
Balanced signature
High lift at low angle of attack (M e .3)
Maneuverabilityto 70 degrees angle-of-attack (M e .9)
Dry supercruise (M e 1.8)
20% increase in usable volume
These objectives clearly show the broad range of
technical challenges presented to the team. However,
to place these objectives into perspective and to
complete the design space definition a set of design
constraints were imposed on the AACE concepts.
These constraints are listed below.
Linear and aligned planform edges
Planar planform perimeter
and significant improvements in longitudinal stability
characteristics compared to the baseline geometry. Lift
characteristics for the sawtooth forebody are presented
in figure 3 and twin-wing results are presented in figure
4.
The data of figure 3 show that the sawtooth forebody
concept provides a significant increase in lift for all
angles-of-attack greater than 10". The data also show
that the sawtooth forebody concept provides a 25%
increase in maximum lift over the baseline planform.
Note, the magnitude of these benefits is depressed by
the use of the total planform area as the reference area
for data reduction. The benefit achieved by the
sawtooth forebody concept results from both vortex lift
acting on the sawteeth as well as the parent wing and an
interfering flow field emanating from the sawteeth onto
the parent wing. The interfering flow field is
characterized by a downwash field that acts on the parent
wing. This allows the parent wing to operate at an
effective lower angle of attack thereby reducing
separation. It is important to note that the sawtooth
forebody concept has been shown to be applicable to
other planform shapes (reference 9).
The data of figure 4 show that the twin wing concept also
provides a significant increase in lift starting at 20" angle-
of-attack and extending to 70" angle-of-attack. The data
show that the twin wing concept also provides a 25%
increase in maximum lift over the baseline planform. It is
conjectured that the benefit achieved by the twin wing
concept results from reduced flow separation on the aft
wing due to astrong downwash field from the forward
wing. This downwash allows the aft wing to operate at an
effective lower angle of attack thereby reducing
separation. It is important to note that the multiple wing
concept has been shown to be applicable to other
planform shapes (reference 9).
These data show that the high-lift performance of aircraft
can be greatly enhanced through the use of multiple
primary lifting surfaces and interfering flow fields.
Additional results will be shown to document the high
speed performance of these planforms.
Flow Control Technoloaies
A total of five different flow control technologies were
identified in the AACE program and four were
investigated. Based upon initial results, the majority of
the effort was directed towards passive porosity
technology and inflatable/deployable micro bumps. A
brief overview of each of these two technologies is
presented below.
4
Passive Porosity Technology
The passive porosity technology has been extensively
studied both experimentally and computationally as a
means to control shocklboundary layer interaction, see
references 10, 18 to 21. The focus of passive porosity in
the AACE activity was for both local boundary layer
management and global application of passive porosity
on an aerodynamic vehicle to control the forces and
moments of the vehicle.
Passive porosity is designed to modify and control the
pressure loading acting on a surface The passive
porosity concept consists of a porous outer surface and
a solid inner surface. The volume between the outer and
inner surfaces form an open plenum that is filled with the
same fluid which is flowing over the exterior surface of
the porous skin, see figure 5. The effectiveness of the
concept is dependent upon the ability of the system to
allow unrestricted communication between large
pressure differences on the external surface (high
permeability).
A representative application of a passive porosity flow
control effector is depicted in figure 6 along with the
equivalent typical control effector (trailing edge flap). It is
conjectured that passive porosity control effectors
provide improved aerodynamic benefit, compared to
typical effectors, because the change in force generated
by the passive porosity device acts perpendicular to the
vehicles principal plane and as a result would have a
greater moment arm. It is also argued that the passive
porosity effector would be more effective because it
produces a linearly varying control force with increasing
lift whereas the typical effector control force nonlinearly
decreases with increasing lift.
The passive porosity effector would be configured with a
means to control the permeability of the passive porosity
system. The means to activate and deactivate the
passive porosity system may be accomplished by
reducing the permeability of the porous surface or by
reducing the permeability of the plenum. The porous
surface permeability may be controlled by restricting the
size of or closing the passages through the porous
surface with asmart skin technology or by covering the
internal surface of the porous surface with a non porous
surface or low permeability surface. The permeability of
the passive porosity system may also be controlled by
changing the plenum characteristics.
Passive porosity control effector development was
performed on a series of wing and fuselage models. The
two wing models were a 65" Delta wing and a high aspect
deployment of MDGs on a wing can increase the drag by
as much as 400% (medium density, large drag plates),
see figure 12. The 400% increase in wing drag equates
to achange in drag coefficient, between the clean wing
and the wing with MDG's, that varies from 0.04 at zero-lift
to 0.1 1 at a lift coefficient of 0.5. The magnitude of this
asymmetric force is equivalent to the side force
generated by the F/A-18 actuated forebody strakes
(references 22 and 23). Both concepts can generate
useful amounts of yawing moments for control. A review
of the data contained in reference 11 shows that MDG's
can also be used to reduce lift.
These results indicate that by asymmetrically deploying
MDGs (only on one wing panel) to an aircraft substantial
amounts of control effectiveness (both rolling- and
yawing-moment coefficients) may be generated.
Therefore, MDGs appear to be an effective concept for
decelerating or controlling a vehicle.
Surface Contourina Technoloaies
The final area of aerodynamic technologies to be
discussed are those related to surface contouring. The
notion that surface contouring has a significant impact on
control effector performance is undoubtedly quite
unusual, however, it is critical if we are to maximize the
benefit of this suite of new technologies. Surface
contouring creates the optimum surface to receive the
naturally occurring loading generated by the planform
and works in parallel with flow control effectors to
increase or decrease the loading. Surface contouring
technologies must produce the loadings required by the
flow control effectors over a broad flight envelope as well
as provide low drag. Note, surface contouring is not
performed to create a predetermined loading or a
predetermined aerodynamic characteristic.
The surface contouring technologies that have been
investigated vary significantly in their approach used to
improve the aerodynamic and vehicle performance. The
Natural Flow, Multi-Body, and Blunt Trailing Edge
technologies create the optimum three dimensional
shape over which the naturally occurring flow field, and
resulting pressures, may act. Passive Porosity and
Adapting/Flexible Surface are used to either fluidically or
physically change the external surface to match the flow
field in an effort to reduce or eliminate separation.
Adapting/Flexible Surface technology was viewed as the
lowest ranking technology because of its complexity and
because it violated the design philosophy of eliminating
all moving surfaces. The highest-ranking surface
contouring technology was the Natural Flow Wing (NFW)
design approach(reference 12 and 26) because of its
robustness and flexibility. The remainder of this section
will highlight this technology.
6
The natural flow surface contouring design approach is
based upon the observation that the characteristic
surface loading of an aircraft is primarily determined by
the vehicles planform and the global loading pattern
varies little with changes in Mach number and angle-of-
attack (reference 13). This observation allows the
designer to create the optimum three-dimensional
surface for the vehicle planform for the characteristic
surface loading to act. This observation and design
approach is equally applicable to planar shapes or
fuciform shapes.
The application of the Natural Flow design concept to a
delta wing is graphically depicted in figure 13. For a
typical delta wing the application of thickness results in a
wing geometry that is conical about the wing tip.
However experimental data (reference 13) show that the
flow is conical about the wing apex. The figure shows
that the flow over the upper surface of a swept wing is
characterized by an expansion over the leading edge
that is followed by a recompression to a more positive
pressure as the flow moves inboard and aft. If the upper
surface of the standard wing is divided into four
quadrants, defined by the intersection of the airfoil
maximum half-thickness line (crest line) and the cross-
flow recompression line, two favorable and two
unfavorable regions are identified. The two unfavorable
regions, which contribute to drag, are the inboard
forward region (A) and the outboard aft-region (C) of the
wing. Region A has high pressures acting on a forward
facing surface and region C has low pressures acting on
an aft-facing surface. Regions B and D have pressure
fields, which combine favorably with the local surface,
slope to reduce drag. The Natural Flow design approach
is to reduce the size of regions A and C and increase the
size of regions B and D.
The Natural Flow wing lower surface design concept is
also shown in figure 13. The sketch on the right side of
figure 13 show that the lower surface pressure loading is
characterized by high pressure over the complete lower
surface. The combination of this high pressure and the
forward facing surface of region A combine to increase
drag and the high pressure combined with the aft facing
surface of region D reduces drag. As discussed above
the design approach is to reduce the size of region A
and increase the size of region D.
To investigate this technology, an aerodynamic design
study and experimental validation was conducted. The
design activity was performed on a 65" delta wing for a
Mach number of 1.62 and a design lift coefficient of 0.3.
A photograph of the natural flow designed wing is shown
in figure 14. The design has negligible surface curvature
(Le., no inflection points) and all planform edges reside in
a single plane. The natural flow design wing, a baseline
REFERENCES
1. Rolfe, D., Dawydoff, A., Winter, W., Byshyn, W., and
Clark, H; Airplanes of the World, 1490 to 1969.
Simon and Schuster. 1969.
2. Taylor, M. and Mondey, D.; Guiness Book of Aircraft
Facts and Feats. Guiness. 1984.
3. Wooldridge, E. T.; Winged Wonders The Story of
the Flying Wings. National Air and Space Museum.
1983.
4. Myhra, D.; The Horten Brothers and Their All-Wing
Aircraft. Schiffer Publishing. 1998
5. Gibbs-Smith, C. H.; Aviation An Historical Survey
from its Origins to the end of World War 11.1985.
6. Anderson, F.; Northrop: An Aeronautical History.
Northrop Corporation, Los Angeles, 1976.
7. Bowers, P. M.; Unconventional Aircraft. TAB Books,
Blue Ridge Summit, PA. 1984.
8. Chambers, J. R.; High-Angle-of-Attack Technology-
Progress and Challenges. High Angle-of-Attack
Technology, Volume 1. NASA CP-3149, Part
1.1 992.
9. Gatlin, G. M. and McGrath, 6. E.; Low-Speed
Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics Through
Poststall for Twenty-one Novel Planform Shapes.
NASA TP 3503. August 1995..
10. Wood, R. M., Banks, D. W., and Bauer, S. X. S . ;
Assessment of Passive Porosity with Free and Fixed
Separation on a Tangent Ogive Forebody. AIAA-92-
4494, 1992.
11. Bauer, S. X. S.; An Aerodynamic Assessment of
Micro-Drag Generators (MDGs). 16th AlAA Applied
Aerodynamics Conference. AIAA-98-2621.
12. Wood, R. M. and Bauer, S. X. S; The Natural Flow
Wing Design Concept. NASATP 3193. May 1992.
13. Wood, R. M.; Supersonic Aerodynamics of Delta
Wings. NASA TP 2771, 1988.
14. Wood, R. M. and Miller, D. S.; Effect of Fuselage
Upwash on the Supersonic Longitudinal
Aerodynamic Characterisitics of Two Fighter
Configurations. NASA TP-2330, 1984.
8
15. Wood, R. M., Miller, D. S., and Brentner, K. S.;
Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of
Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Twin -
Fuselage Concept. NASA TP-2184, 1983.
16. Wood, R. M., Rose, 0. J., McMillin, S. N.; Effects of
Body Cross-Sectional Shape on the Supersonic
Aerodynamics of Multibody Configurations. NASA
TP-2587, 1986.
17. McMillin, S. N. and Wood, R.M.; Planform Effects on
the Supersonic Aerodynamics of Multibody
Configurations. NASATP-2762, 1987.
18. Bauer, S. X. S. and Hemsch, M. J.: Alleviation of
Side Force on Tangent Ogive Forebodies Using
Passive Porosity, Proposed AlAA Paper 10th
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, June 1992.
19. Wilcox, F. J.: Experimental Investigation of the
Effects of a Porous Floor on Cavity Flow Fields at
Supersonic Speeds. NASA TP 3032, 1990.
20. Nagamatsu, H. T. and Orozco,R. D.: Porosity Effect
on Supercritical Airfoil Drag Reduction by Shock
Wave Boundary Layer Control. AIAA-4-1682.
21. McGhee, R. J. and Beasley, W. D.: Low-Speed
Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 17-Percent -Thick
Airfoil Section Designed for General Aviation
Applications. NASA TN D-7428. December 1973.
22. Erickson, G. E.;Wind Tunnel Investigation of Vortex
Flows on F/A-18 Configuration at Subsonic Through
Transonic Speeds. NASA TP-3111, 1991.
23. Erickson, G. E. and Murri, D. G.; Wind Tunnel
Investigations of Forebody Strakes for Yaw Control
on F/A-18 Model at Subsonic and Transonic
Speeds. NASA TP-3360, 1993.
24. Regenie, V., Gatlin, D., Kempel, R., and Matheny,
N.; The F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle: A High
Angle-of-Attack Testbed Aircraft. NASA TM-104253,
1992.
25. Buttrill, C. S.; Arbuckle, P. D.; and Hoffler, K. D.:
Simulation Model of a Twin Tail High Performance
Airplane. NASA TM-107601, 1992.
26. Bauer,X. S. X., Wood, R. M., and Brown, S. M.; A
Natural Flow Wing Design Employing 3 D Nonlinear
Analysis Applied at Supersonic Speeds. AIAA-89-
2167, 1989.
 TRADITIONAL POROUS CONTROL
40" Diamond and 40" Sawtooth Diamond TRAILINGEDGE FLAP SURFACE
Nonlinearly decreasing moment - Linearly varying aerodynamics.
1.2 and increasing drag with - Minimal impact on flow field
increasing lift. characteristics.
1 .0 Modified flow
- Modified flow field.
field. - A

0.8

0.6

0.4 A
Total Lift Total Lift ,y Porous
0.2
t " t e Surface
0.0

-0.2 '-Vent Pipe

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 A- A B-B

01, deg Figure 6. Sketch comparing traditional control effector

Figure 3. Plot of lift against angle-of-attack for the 40" with passive porosity control effector.
diamond planform and the 40" sawtooth
planform.
+Upper and Lower (15% semispan)
UUpper and Lower (30% remispan)
+Upper and Lower (45% semispan)
*Upper and Lower (60%semispan)
SO0 Diamond and 30° Twin Diamond +Upper and Lower (75% semispan)
+Upper and Lower (100% semispan)
M, = .14
0.00 5
1.2
0.000
1 .0
-0.005
0.8

0.6 -0.010
Acl
- 0.4 -0.015

0.2 -0-020

0.0 -0.02 5

-0.2 -0.030
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
a
a. deg
Figure 4. Plot of lift against angle-of-attack for the 30" Figure 7. Plot of rolling moment increment for various
diamond planform and the 30"twin diamond passive porosity applications to the tip of the
planform. 55"delta wing.

BoundaN
IM = 0.2 I
0.05

0.00

-0.05

L J Plenum
Region -0.10

/ Solid Inner
Surface -0.15

Figure 5. Schematic of passive porosity system. -0.20

-5" 0" 5' 10" 15" 20" 25" 30"
a

Figure 8. Plot of the lift coefficient increment for various

passive porosity applications to the trailing
edge of a 55" delta wing.
10
 hAfllRhL FLOW WNC

Figure 15. Oil-flow photographs of baseline, near _I

Figure 18. Photograph of the twin wing advanced aircraft

conical, and natural flow 65"delta wing
models for M = 1.6 and a lift coefficient of 0.3. concept model.

0.06
-
-_-_
0 I Baseline Wing
0 Near-Conical Wing
A Narural Flow Wing 0.05

0.04
,o 0.03

6.0 0.02
a
0.0 1

2.0 c ca' 0
I .4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Mach
CL CL Figure 19. Plot of the zero-lift drag characteristics against
Figure 16. Plot of lift coefficient and lift-to-drag ratio for Mach number for the baseline and twin wing
the baseline, near conical, and natural flow advanced aircraft concepts.
65"delta wing models.

n no
u.uo

0.07

0.06

cLa 0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Figure 17. Sketch of baseline and twin wing advanced Mach
aircraft planform concepts.
Figure 20. Plot of the lift-curve slope characteristics
against Mach number for the baseline and
twin wing advanced aircraft concepts.
12